Thread: Donald Trump Threatens to Cancel Some Health-Care Benefits for Lawmakers

Good info provided Newmexican.

With the exception of the military,

I have long felt government employees should live under the same system the majority of us do. No taxpayer funded retirement - they should pay into SS. Their healthcare benefits should not be gold plated. They should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Also, we really need term limits. Now!

I questioned Mo Brooks about this at a Town Hall meeting on the Monday after Obama signed the waiver. He became indignant denied it and berated me for believing "all these lies" on the internet. I went home posted the WSJ article confirming it on his facebook page and it was taken down by the next morning.

Congress Makes Clear That ObamaCare Applies To Everyone But Them

Posted by Betsy on Wednesday, August 7, 2013 · Leave a Comment


By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Who says Obama and members of both parties can’t agree on anything?

Members of Congress are brazenly insisting the laws they pass apply to everyone but themselves.

Republicans and Democrats, who can agree on almost nothing else, are conniving to exempt themselves and their staff from Sect. 1312 (d) of the Affordable Care Act that requires them to get their health insurance on the newly created insurance exchanges and pay the same premiums the public will have to pay.

Currently, members of Congress and their staff are covered by plans they chose through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, with taxpayers picking up 75% of the tab. The thinking behind the new requirement is that what’s good enough for the public ought to be good enough for Congress.

Sadly, Washington lawmakers don’t agree. They claim that despite their generous salaries (members earn $174,000) they can’t afford Obamacare premiums. What the government deems “affordable” for the rest of us isn’t affordable for them.

For example, in New York City, a family of 3 with household income of $80,000 will be required to pay a whopping $12,784 for the second cheapest silver plan with a $3,000 deductible. This family won’t be eligible for a tax credit. Washington says $12,784 is “affordable” for them. But not for a member of Congress with more than double that income. Under the scheme the lawmakers are pushing, they would have to pay only $3,193 for the same plan.

Nothing in the Affordable Care Act allows this break for members of Congress and their staff. But for weeks, lawmakers from both parties — who can agree on nothing else — have been conspiring to weasel out of paying what the public has to pay. On this one issue, Republicans and Democrats are thick as thieves. They’ve even recruited President Obama to get personally involved. The President has enlisted the help of the Office of Personnel Management. Just to make sure OPM produces a remedy, Republicans in the Senate have put a hold on the nomination of the next Director of the Office of Personnel Management until the issue is resolved.
Members of Congress say they’re entitled because Obamacare forced them to give up their on-the-job coverage. Join the club with millions of other Americans. Even before Congress voted to pass Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office warned that between 7 and 8 million people would lose coverage at work because of the law. McKinsey & Co., management consultants, predicted many more. Congress didn’t rush to protect these private sector employees who would be saddled with paying for exchange plans. Now Congress should get a taste of its own medicine.

Congress also needs a refresher course on the U.S. Constitution and the principles that make this nation free.

Principle 1: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. In Federalist #57, the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, explained that the new nation would remain free only so long lawmakers had to live by the same laws they imposed on the public.

Principle 2: In this nation, the rule of law is supposed to be king, not Mr. Obama. Unfortunately, people in Washington look the other way, when Obama grabs more authority than the Constitution allows. He handed out 1,472 waivers exempting certain unions and employers from the earliest provisions of Obamacare, though nothing in the law permitted it. Then he delayed the employer mandate, though the law states that it will take effect, January 1, 2014. That lawless move shifts billions of dollars in insurance costs from employers onto taxpayers. Now Obama is signaling that he will arrange for taxpayer-funded subsidies for lawmakers and staff. That’s a clear violation of the law. Only Congress can appropriate the people’s money to fund such subsidies

Members of Congress who accept these crony payments, instead of paying for Obamacare like the public has to, should wind up on a roster of shame circulated to voters before the 2014 midterm elections. No one should be re-elected to Congress who is unwilling to live by the laws imposed on the rest of us.
http://betsymccaughey.com/congress-m...yone-but-them/

Congress’s Obamacare Waiver

By Michael F. Cannon

This article appeared in National Review (Online) on August 6, 2013.

America has a two-party system. But it’s not Republicans versus Democrats. It’s the ruling class — Republicans and Democrats — against everyone else. Consider how President Obama just gave Congress its very own Obamacare waiver.

Obamacare includes a provision that should cost each member of Congress and each staffer $5,000 to $11,000 per year. Needless to say, the ruling class was not pleased.
Congress wasn’t about to try to exempt itself from this provision explicitly, though. If John Q. Congressman voted to give himself an Obamacare waiver that his constituents don’t get, he wouldn’t be John Q. Congressman much longer. What’s an aristocrat to do?

President Obama is buying votes from members of Congress — with stolen money.

On July 30, I predicted that, even though he had no authority to do so, President Obama would waive that provision at taxpayers’ expense. On August 1, he ignobly obliged the aristocracy by decreeing we peasants give each member and staffer $5,000 or $11,000, depending on whether they want self-only or family coverage. It’s good to be king.

The president’s supporters, like courtiers of old, are trying to quell a peasant uprising by denying there were any special favors. The denials ring hollow.

Obamacare imposes two costs on members of Congress and their staff. First, it kicks them out of their current health plans, leaving them to buy coverage on Obamacare’s health-insurance “exchanges.” Second, it makes no provision for the federal government to keep paying $5,000 or $11,000 toward the cost of their insurance as the Treasury does today.

The second cost is by far the larger one; it amounts to a pay cut of $5,000 or $11,000. Many staffers were threatening to quit or retire early.

When the president’s supporters claim that Congress isn’t being exempted, they mean that Obama didn’t exempt them from Cost No. 1. Which is true. But he did exempt them from Cost No. 2.

Rescinding that pay cut may or may not have been the right thing to do. But it’s still a break that ordinary Americans like Kevin Pace don’t get. Pace is an adjunct music professor at Northern Virginia Community College. To avoid penalties under Obamacare, his employer cut his hours — sticking Pace with an $8,000 pay cut.

Supporters say President Obama merely held Congress harmless. Exactly. Kevin Pace and countless others like him aren’t being held harmless, because they’re not members of Congress. As Kevin Pace put it, “This isn’t right on any level.”

Things would be unseemly enough if Congress’s Obamacare waiver were legal. But experts say the president had no authority to grant it.

That didn’t stop even Republicans from praising him, however. Tin-eared Representative Chris Stewart (R., Utah) gushed: “There’s no question it was the right thing to do. Not just for me, but for my staff. Heavens, I have staff who don’t make much money. This would be a really big bite for them.”

Congressman, you also have constituents who don’t make much money, and who can’t make it appear out of thin air. Enjoy your waiver.

How was I able to predict the president would grant illegal subsidies to members of Congress? He’s a repeat offender.

Obamacare actually kicked members of Congress out of their current health plans and imposed that $5,000 to $11,000 pay cut immediately upon enactment in 2010. But President Obama just ignored that part of the law. He let members and staff stay in their current health plans and kept the taxpayer money flowing in their direction.

I predicted President Obama would give illegal health-insurance subsidies to members of Congress because he is already in his fourth year of doing it.

Pretty much all Americans can point to some part of Obamacare that they hate. Seniors hate the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which even Howard Dean calls “a health-care rationing body.”

Unions, teacher assistants, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and other school employees hate how the law is cutting their pay. Private-sector unions despise the “Cadillac tax” that forces them to fund subsidies their members don’t receive. Young adults hate the penalties for not buying health insurance. Okay, everybody hates those. In fact, a majority of Americans oppose the entire law.

But only Congress gets relief. Why?

Simple. President Obama doesn’t want Congress to reopen Obamacare. A significant share of congressional Democrats just voted to delay the individual mandate. With once-loyal Democrats now upset over how the law hurts them personally, who knows what else Congress would discard?

President Obama circumvented a potential legislative defeat by giving each member and staffer thousands of taxpayer dollars he had no authority to touch. He’s buying votes from members of Congress — with stolen money, no less.

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...amacare-waiver

See Also.

https://www.alipac.us/f9/obama-appro...macare-284854/

https://www.alipac.us/f9/round-3-hou...mption-288862/

https://www.alipac.us/f19/update-1-u...sidies-285143/

This kind of thing may be the reason the election of President Trump sent them into an insane frenzy.

They were afraid these things might get exposed - and I believe there are much more egregious things to be brought into the light.

This time the people voted for person, not necessarily, a party, and I think that scared them.

The one party system that is being supported by the media and lobbyists may be in danger.

We can always hope we keep the momentum going.

I don't think Trump will end it. I seriously doubt he has any intention of going to battle with congress over this. Unfortunately it's not good politics to piss on the very people you need to push your agenda forward. I wish he would, but don't see it happening.

Originally Posted by MW

I don't think Trump will end it. I seriously doubt he has any intention of going to battle with congress over this. Unfortunately it's not good politics to piss on the very people you need to push your agenda forward. I wish he would, but don't see it happening.

You could be right -but it seems there are not enough on our side to get the job done anyway.